• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Buying Help (1 Viewer)

The SV 32 behaves more like a 42mm and the MHG in some ways behaves a lot like a 32mm. I have to say that with the funds, I'd probably rather have the SV 32mm but not by much. Mainly the flatter field wins here for me.

Some might prefer a slightly smaller field sharp to the edges, others might go for the wider field - or have their cake and eat it too and shell out the dough for the SF.

I removed the Conquest as I like the idea of a super wide FOV.

and....based on advice above I have included the SV 8x32

So Nikon HG 8x42 vs Swarovski 8x32 SV

To me the above two quotes from Chill6x6 and jring are is biggest decisions I have to make to decide what to buy.

Does $1165 AUD extra for the 8x32 SV = edge sharpness, true flat field and a weight saving.
 
Last edited:
I removed the Conquest as I like the idea of a super wide FOV.

and....based on advice above I have included the SV 8x32

So Nikon HG 8x42 vs Swarovski 8x32 SV

To me the above two quotes from Chill6x6 and jring are is biggest decisions I have have to make to decide what to buy.

Does $1165 AUD extra for the 8x32 SV = edge sharpness, true flat field and a weight saving.

Do you wear eyeglasses? All things being equal a 42mm IS generally easier to use than a 32mm for eyeglass wearers. 4mm exit pupil vs. 5.25mm exit pupil. Since you are buying these sight unseen I just want you to know that. I wear eyeglasses so any binocular I use is eyeglass friendly including the 32mm SV. I've used the 8X32 SV so much it's second nature but most eyeglass users do find that a 42mm is easier to use, at least in the beginning.

No doubt the SV 8X32 IS 2x the price of the MHG. Is it WORTH is? Well the short answer is no, it really isn't.. BUT...

The SV 8X32 IS a better made binocular. Not that the MHG is poorly made, it's not. The SVs central diopter adjustment IS among the best. The case is the best. TRUE edge to edge sharpness. Handling may very well be the best of any binocular but the MHG is no slouch. So the extra money goes towards several different features, most of which aren't necessary but certainly nice to have.

I'd be happy with the MHG. It's a great birding binocular. The very fact that the MHG is brought up in the same sentence as the SV 8X32 says a lot about the MHG. But If I had the cash and was willing to part with it for a binocular and if I'm honest with myself, I'd want the SV. That's just me.
 
Do you wear eyeglasses?

No I don't, but I am booked in for this Friday for an eye test. Things don't seem bad but I reckon will be crisper with glasses.....so will wait and see.

Thanks for the info. It's much easier to justify the Nikon over the SV although I love crisp optics. I have a TV60 and TV eyepieces as well have always bought L series Canon lenses.

Sigh
 
No I don't, but I am booked in for this Friday for an eye test. Things don't seem bad but I reckon will be crisper with glasses.....so will wait and see.

Thanks for the info. It's much easier to justify the Nikon over the SV although I love crisp optics. I have a TV60 and TV eyepieces as well have always bought L series Canon lenses.

Sigh

GAL1LEO,

Cutting to the chase here, based on everything you say, I'll step out over the line. Buy the SV 8x32. If it works for you, and it probably will, you will never regret having spent the extra money. Always remember Rule #1: "Anytime you are not using binoculars, you are wasting time."

Mike
 
GAL1LEO,

Cutting to the chase here, based on everything you say, I'll step out over the line. Buy the SV 8x32. If it works for you, and it probably will, you will never regret having spent the extra money. Always remember Rule #1: "Anytime you are not using binoculars, you are wasting time."

Mike

It's always much easier to spend someone else's money, but I'd agree. I got a deal on the EL Fpro 8.5x42 and they just blow away the mid-ranges I've tried. They are crisper and more vibrant. I've not used the SV 8x32 or the HG, so cannot really compare them, but if you can do it, go for it.

Personally, I use the Kowa Genesis 8x33 in the x32 range. It's about US$1200. It does everything I need in an x32. The Genesis is 140m @ 1000m (420'@1000yd), close focus 1.5m (4.9'), and 590g (21oz). The optics are great. The EL SV is 140m @ 1000m, close focus 1.9m, and 595g. For me, the .4m improvement in close focus is important (I look at bees and flowers close by out my breakfast window) and the price is great for the quality. They are not a flat field.

Others have praised the Genesis and put it in the same class optics as the top-tier [1, both the review and in various replies].

Marc

[1] https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=336311
 
Thankyou.
The Genesis 33 here in Australia is a couple of hundred more than the Nikon.

I will have a read of the review.


I have no doubt I will love the SV. $1100 is a lot of extra $$$ to part with though
 
IMO I would go with the SV 8x32. I have had and compared it too the Kowa Genesis 8x33 and it is quite a bit better. I have the SV 8.5x42 FP and the SV 8x32 and the bigger 42mm does not blow away the smaller 32mm. In fact if I had to get rid of one of them it would probably be the SV 8.5x42 FP. The littler glass has a bigger FOV and more WOW factor and it is much lighter and smaller. It does not give up much to the 42mm.
 
Keeping in mind Brendan's location is important.
In Brisbane the price difference between the 8x42 MGH and a Swaro 8x32 SV is about 73%.
In the US the difference is about 250% because the Nikon list price is less and is often discounted and the Swaros are not. This makes the decision a lot simpler for most.

This is assuming that what Lee mentions in his post #2 isn't available to you.
IF ordering both at the same time is available to you from an internet company, then why wouldn't you do that and compare for yourself?

I for one, would be interested in what you think comparing these bins side by side.

Full disclosure? Big fan of the 8x42 MHG.
 
Last edited:
I have the 8X42 MHG, not the 10X42, and it is probably one of the best 8X42s for ease of use.
The SV 8X32 is still a 8X32, I just prefer the 8X42 format for eye placement and a more relaxed view.
If you can try both, then you can make the decision.

Andy W.
 
I have the 8X42 MHG, not the 10X42, and it is probably one of the best 8X42s for ease of use.
The SV 8X32 is still a 8X32, I just prefer the 8X42 format for eye placement and a more relaxed view.
If you can try both, then you can make the decision.

Andy W.

Thanks Andy, do you have any other bins and if so where does the MHG sit in your usage?
Cheers
Brendan
 
Last edited:
Hi Brendan, great thread and really enjoying sharing in your binocular decision process and the great advice and views people are giving.

I think Chuck kind of had it right in that for function as a birdwatching tool the MHG makes absolute sense and does a very good job. It's good value, but certainly not cheap. You're getting high end quality binoculars with great wide FOV, bright optics and lightweight for a 42mm and stylish.

If you're a collector of binoculars (as well as a birder) and constantly on the look out for the very best then the SV 8x32 makes sense because you're always going to want to have the very best. The MHG is already so far ahead of most (all that I've tried) cheaper binoculars, that if you don't own a Zeiss SF or other Alpha bins you're not going to be missing anything with the MHG. I tried an 8x42 MHG when buying a used Zeiss SF 8x42 and on axis the MHG was sharper and similar to the SV 8.5x42 I also tried.

I went for the SF because of the big field of view that's sharp across the field I thought I could clean them up and improve the sharpness. I did, but still felt they weren't quite as sharp as I'd like and traded for a 8.5x42 SV FP, which are great, but a bit heavy for long walks. I think if I had just got the MHG 8x42 I'd have saved a lot of money and been very happy. I'm looking more at the 8x32 SV now as through this whole process I've slipped into the collector camp on the hunt for my absolute ideal general purpose bin......if you're not there, save your money and get the MHG. Good luck.
 
There is no other binocular that is as sharp to the edge as the Swarovski SV's including the Zeiss SF, Nikon HG or even the Canon 10x42 IS-L which is the closest to the SV. If you want sharp edges and a flat field the SV is the best and If you don't like the size and weight of the SV 8.5x42 then the SV 8x32 is your binocular.
 
There is no other binocular that is as sharp to the edge as the Swarovski SV's including the Zeiss SF, Nikon HG or even the Canon 10x42 IS-L which is the closest to the SV. If you want sharp edges and a flat field the SV is the best and If you don't like the size and weight of the SV 8.5x42 then the SV 8x32 is your binocular.

You have read Henry Link's review of the Canon 10x32 IS "The distortion profile of the Canon demonstrates clearly that the “rolling ball” inducing mustache distortion used in the Swaro EL SVs (and the Zeiss SF) is totally unnecessary for correcting field curvature and astigmatism. Nearly perfect field flatness can be achieved with a distortion profile that should cause no panning disturbances for anybody."?
 
You have read Henry Link's review of the Canon 10x32 IS "The distortion profile of the Canon demonstrates clearly that the “rolling ball” inducing mustache distortion used in the Swaro EL SVs (and the Zeiss SF) is totally unnecessary for correcting field curvature and astigmatism. Nearly perfect field flatness can be achieved with a distortion profile that should cause no panning disturbances for anybody."?
The Canon 10x42 IS-L does not have as flat of field as the SV's nor is it as sharp at the edge. I think if Swarovski could have designed the SV's with perfect field flatness and a distortion profile that caused no panning disturbances they would have. There is just always trade offs in optical design.
 
To me Nikon still is the king of the flat field optics, unfortunately besides the WX, the EDG - now archived , most of their current efforts of high end optics are into camera lens. ( I am still glad they at least make the Monarch Hg series, a very good value and view.

Andy W.
 
The Canon 10x42 IS-L does not have as flat of field as the SV's nor is it as sharp at the edge. I think if Swarovski could have designed the SV's with perfect field flatness and a distortion profile that caused no panning disturbances they would have. There is just always trade offs in optical design.

But Henry tested the Canon 10x32 not the 10x42 which is what you are referring to.

It looks like it is possible to have an optical design without the trade offs you mention as witnessed by Henry's report. (If you read his review there are other optical "weaknesses" in the Canon).
 
I had the Canon 10x32 also. Not near as flat field or as sharp at the edge as the SV's. IMO the Canon 10x32 was not nearly as good as the Canon 10x42 IS-L with it's better L glass. In fact I returned my Canon 10x32's very quickly. The Canon 10x30 IS are even better than the Canon 10x32 IMO. I really think that is why the Canon 10x32's are being discounted by 50% off. They started at $1349.95 and now they are down to $649.95. That was the only reason I tried them.
 
Last edited:
To me Nikon still is the king of the flat field optics, unfortunately besides the WX, the EDG - now archived , most of their current efforts of high end optics are into camera lens. ( I am still glad they at least make the Monarch Hg series, a very good value and view.

Andy W.
I have not tried the WX's but the EDG's are not as flat field nor do they have as sharp of edges as the SV's. The SV's are the extreme when it comes to flat field and sharp edges.
 
But panning with the EDG is sublime and to me a more realistic view, not to mention great glare control. For my type of viewing during the day I prefer the EDG in 8 and 10X42, just my opinion.
Now when I use glass on the night sky, the SLC 10X56 or 15X56 and the SV12X50 are first choice. I tend to prefer the SVs in the larger format.

Andy W,
 
Last edited:
Hi Brendan, great thread and really enjoying sharing in your binocular decision process and the great advice and views people are giving.

I think Chuck kind of had it right in that for function as a birdwatching tool the MHG makes absolute sense and does a very good job. It's good value, but certainly not cheap. You're getting high end quality binoculars with great wide FOV, bright optics and lightweight for a 42mm and stylish.

If you're a collector of binoculars (as well as a birder) and constantly on the look out for the very best then the SV 8x32 makes sense because you're always going to want to have the very best. The MHG is already so far ahead of most (all that I've tried) cheaper binoculars, that if you don't own a Zeiss SF or other Alpha bins you're not going to be missing anything with the MHG. I tried an 8x42 MHG when buying a used Zeiss SF 8x42 and on axis the MHG was sharper and similar to the SV 8.5x42 I also tried.

I went for the SF because of the big field of view that's sharp across the field I thought I could clean them up and improve the sharpness. I did, but still felt they weren't quite as sharp as I'd like and traded for a 8.5x42 SV FP, which are great, but a bit heavy for long walks. I think if I had just got the MHG 8x42 I'd have saved a lot of money and been very happy. I'm looking more at the 8x32 SV now as through this whole process I've slipped into the collector camp on the hunt for my absolute ideal general purpose bin......if you're not there, save your money and get the MHG. Good luck.

Thanks mpeace, It has opened up alot of extra conversation which I hope will help someone else in my position.

I think I will end up with MHG, purely for a price point.
$2600 is alot.... damn, even $1500 for the MHG is alot, but I can justify the $1500 alot easier.

I have no doubt the SV is sharper, better etc etc but if seasoned users like the ones in here think the MHG is top notch then I think that's good enough for me, irrespective of the valid "my eyes, my hand" advice.

In the 90s as a kid I was always at pops watching birds etc. Life and sport took me away from these sorts of hobbies and now I am just getting back into it.
Maybe down the track I will look at the SV range but for now the MHG might be my go to. It seems its not a bad place to be for a bloke just getting back into it.

Cheers
Brendan
 
Warning! This thread is more than 5 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top